For television, the near future will be a struggle between Murdochworld and Googleworld. But I would not bet on Murdochworld in the long run. The internet and Starbucks demonstrate that fundamentally we love choice more than anything else. Googleworld will give us access via the TV terminal to all the drama, news, music, games, public services, and arts we could possibly want, and content suppliers will struggle to get our attention. So why in the long run would we make do with a mere 200 channels for which we pay a subscription? No chance. And no chance of regulating most of it. The only signpost will be "google search".

Once Google goes public, what's to stop Murdoch or some mogul like him from eventually taking control of that enterprise (and of the larger universe of Internet portholes)? In other words, what is to prevent Murdochworld from eventually swallowing Googleworld?

You are one of the few people that are thinking convergence and video on demand. Joe Trippi blew it with his facile and simplistic "the revolution will not be televised". He's dead wrong. TV / video will remain the communication medium of choice for mainstream america for a long time. Of COURSE the web plays a huge role in Trippi's brave new world. You'd have to be an idiot to not grasp that.

But for all the web's strengths -- and choices -- as you point out, Americans at large are not NY Times readers, they are not blog surfers, they haven't even a smidgeon of a clue what "Democracy Now!" is (and based on the way they brand that program, it will never penetrate into mainstream), they don't know Greg Palast, William Rivers Pitt, they have no idea what Information Clearinghouse is, and they sure as hell don't know what Media Matters is either.

People who actively seek news and information DO -- or are likely to know of these online entities. But that does not define most Americans. They are TV watchers and USA Today skimmers. Maybe add Rush and O'Reilly on Radio.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that "Google Search" will kill Murdoch -- at the time when convergence and broadband have sufficientlly advanced such that when people click video on laptops or desktop computers they get what they would call "TV"... not "streaming media" or "full-screen video" or Hiband clip -- but "TV". Because in my view, that's what "TV" means today.

Consumers don't differentiate like they used to between broadcast TV and cable TV and satellite TV and Tivo and DVDs and VHS... For all intents and purposes, those are all "TV". And all that distingushes them are their delivery systems.

Likewise, when video is good enough on a computer, there won't be any meaningful distinction --- other than then next wave of HDTV and "TV" -- but even that will become moot at some point, since HDTV will be deliverable to the PC.

I've worked in convergence media since 1993 -- when I worked on the last of the "Great ITV Trials" -- The Time Warner Full Service Network in Orlando. And I was on the UI/development team who designed and built the proof of concept of the original At Home Network -- which back then was conceived as not just a cable-modem delivery system, but also a rich-media content channel as well. That was 1995 and we have yet to see anything close to what that looked like -- with video seamlessly tied into broadband internet.

So I know a little something about this.

But I have to say that in the progressive circle I travel -- the liberal progressives don't have a clue about all this. Here they went and spent gazillion dollars on Air America -- on a decaying platform -- vs on a web-based platform that might also deliver via radio. Ass-backwards.

This was the reason I and several others convened "Media Summit Net" in Boston before the DNC. (You were invited along with Greenwald and others, but understandably you were already committed.) (We did show the Outfoxed trailer however.. along with that for Hunting of the President, The Corporation, and Greg Palast's new DVD.) The summit's agenda was nothing less than the creation of a multi-platform progressive media network.

We are moving forward on this at a steady clip now. But we need to get more of the "anchor orgs" aboard -- and that means Media Matters and MoveOn.

I also want to bring to your attention a resource network which has, unfortunately, been largely hidden --- and it needs a spotlight -- and it needs funding. That is the Rapid Response Network (at RapidResponseNetwork.org). This is the outgrowth of Dean Rapid Response Network which I conceived of when the Dean Campaign wasn't doing it themselves. It was built out then into a 50-state operation of -- as you call them -- News Hounds -- with state editorial framers for state-level action alerts -- as well as a national network with a national editorial framer who has been crafting Daily Alerts for over a year now.

Her name is Liz Herbert -- and she needs to plugged right into your News Hounds operation -- AND Media Matters new action network. Fact is, all of you should be turning to her to see *their* model -- and try to integrate all 3 things into a well-oild coordinated machine.

Add George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute and the progressives would start to move at quadruple speed from where they are now.

If you -- or any of your readers -- would like to discuss these large-scale integrations, please contact me at this address (initially): rh4deanNOSPAMATyahoo.com